The sort of "untyped" that your last sentence is referring to is a dead term, though. The only "untyped" language still in common use is assembler, and that's not commonly written by hand anymore (and when it is, it's primarily running on numbers, not complex structs and complex values). There aren't any extant languages anymore that just accept numbers in RAM and just treat them as whatever.

So increasingly, this objection is meaningless, because nobody is using "untyped" that way anymore. The way in which people do use the term, Python is only "optionally" typed, and a lot of real-world Python code is "untyped".

This "strong typing" message from the Python community has always sounded like propaganda to me - designed to confuse management. Strong typing is about machine checked proofs of invariants, not whether you avoid a few daft built-in coercions.

It depends on what definition of "type system" you're using. Colloquially many programmers use it to refer to any system that checks whether objects have specific shapes. Academics, on the other hand, have a very specific definition of a type system that excludes dynamic detect languages. From TAPL (one of the authoritative works on the subject):

> A type system is a tractable syntactic method for proving the absence of certain program behaviors by classifying phrases according to the kinds of values they compute.

And later on:

> A type system can be regarded as calculating a kind of static approximation to the runtime behaviors of the terms in a program. ... Terms like "dynamically typed" are arguably misnomers and should probably be replaced by "dynamically checked," but the usage is standard.

In other words, you're both correct in your definitions depending on who you're talking to, but if we're going to get pedantic (which you seem to be) OP is slightly more correct.

Personally, it feels like dynamically typed language advocates have been getting more and more vocal about their language of choice being "typed" as static typing has grown in popularity in recent years. This seems like misdirected energy—static typing advocates know what they're advocating for and know that dynamically typed languages don't fill their need. You're not accomplishing much by trying to force them to use inclusive language.

Rather than trying to push Python as a typed language it seems like it would be more effective to show why dynamic checks have value.